Apple data centers now on 100 percent renewable energy

A new, 100-acre, 20-MW solar farm powers the NC data center directly.

Apple now uses only renewable energy sources for all of its data centers, the company reported in an update to its environmental commitments Wednesday. A 100-acre solar farm erected next to its largest data center in Maiden, North Carolina, in addition to fuel cells that convert biogas into energy, contribute 60 percent of the data center’s energy resources, with the balance sourced from other local sites.

Apple was dinged by Greenpeace International in an April 2012 report for using fossil fuels and coal to power its operations. Apple completed its solar farm in December and has now “achieved 100 percent renewable energy at all of our data centers, at our facilities in Austin, Elk Grove, Cork, and Munich, and at our Infinite Loop campus in Cupertino.” Worldwide, Apple uses 75 percent renewable energy but promises it “won’t stop working” until it reaches 100 percent.

Of Apple’s new solar farm, Greenpeace International Senior IT Analyst Gary Cook stated, “Apple still has major roadblocks to meeting its 100 % clean energy commitment in North Carolina,” noting that renewable energy policies are “under siege” and the local electric utility, Duke Energy, is “intent on blocking wind and solar energy from entering the grid.” Apple plans to build a second 20-megawatt solar energy facility near the North Carolina data center, set to be operational in late 2013.

Does anyone actually take Greenpeace seriously anymore? I long ago decided Greenpeace is a group that will focus on (i) high profile targets over high impact solutions and (ii) no solution is ever good enough for them.

Also, good for Apple. But so I don't appear fanboyish, I'll point out that Google and others have also done some great work on reducing the impact of their datacenters. But so I don't appear to be criticizing Ars for focusing on Apple, I only know about those other company's efforts because I read about them on Ars.

(Edit) My bad, I misinterpreted the numbers. I thought it read that a handful of Apple's data centers are now fully renewable while overall the data centers are at 75% renewable. I now realize it was saying data centers overall at 100% and Apple overall at 75%. (/edit)

Headline seems a bit misleading as it implies all of the data centers are fully powered with renewable energy even though the article states that only 75% of the data centers' power usage is from renewables.

Headline seems a bit misleading as it implies all of the data centers are fully powered with renewable energy even though the article states that only 75% of the data centers' power usage is from renewables.

From what I understand, data centers run 100% on renewable energy, and Apple is globally running 75% on renewable energy.

Headline seems a bit misleading as it implies all of the data centers are fully powered with renewable energy even though the article states that only 75% of the data centers' power usage is from renewables.

From what I understand, data centers run 100% on renewable energy, and Apple is globally running 75% on renewable energy.

What I wonder is how long the production and installation cost--in terms of both energy output and material creation/pollution--will take to balance out compared to simply running it off of traditional power.

EDIT: I'm impressed by the number of downvotes I've collected simply by asking a question that, apparently. some of you don't want to think about.

Does anyone actually take Greenpeace seriously anymore? I long ago decided Greenpeace is a group that will focus on (i) high profile targets over high impact solutions and (ii) no solution is ever good enough for them.

The article makes this sound as though Apple did all of this because Greenpeace was critical of them. I doubt that could be further from the truth.

I hope the Greenpeace statements weren't really a slam on Apple, but they come across that way. Is the whole statement by them available somewhere so I can glean the context of those quotes? I tried searching the web but have only found something from last summer so far.

"...and the local electric utility, Duke Energy, is “intent on blocking wind and solar energy from entering the grid."

I'm shocked!

I am shocked..My company has a solar grid connected to Duke Energy's system with no problem. BMW in Greenville, SC has a Solar Grid Connected to Duke Energy. Now...Its not 20MW.

This is probably the wrinkle. That much power being dumped into the Grid without Duke having the ability to control it probably is viewed as a risk, and it goes from a profile of augmentation to a profile of generation. Its is probably not a case that Duke is not being evil or anti-green. Its probably a technical concern. That is a lot of power, and they need the ability to control it so they can maintain the Grid Frequency. If Apple suddenly has a problem at one of their data centers in the afternoon they just can throw all that power out to the grid without repercussions. Also...Apple is probably not trying to be off grid. Apple is probably producing at a much higher demand rate so they can say in a 24hr period they ran completely off solar power. That means during the day Apple is a significant generator of electric power and at night they are a significant consumer of power. I could see Duke having some concerns. I bet they get it worked out, Duke isn't out to get that kind of PR.

Green Peace's comment is a little out line, there is plenty of evidence that Duke is not bent on blocking wind and solar energy. It is the implementation and the how that is probably the question. Nuclear Power is pretty popular in the South east. I imagine the challenges Duke faces managing their generation is significant verses a circuit that doesnt haven any nuclear power. Seems like Green Peace is being real petty to me.

What I wonder is how long the production and installation cost--in terms of both energy output and material creation/pollution--will take to balance out compared to simply running it off of traditional power.

In terms of materials: most of the weight of solar panel is glass cover and Al frame - both can be recycled quite easily. Rest of the stuff (like Si cells, adhesives) can also be recycled or dissolved but not all companies do this:http://2011.solarteam.org/news/recyclin ... aic-panels

And yet they still use Chinese factories that are notorious for destroying the environment, Apple's feeble attempt to go green doesn't dismiss the fact they only care about the bottom line and are doing nothing to protect China's environment.

Oh please.If you are going to finger-point, you also need to include some other Foxconn customers: Dell, IBM, Ericsson, Philips, Microsoft, HP & Nokia.

People just blink when one mentions them. Then the mantra goes right back to "Apple is so-ooo evillllll!!"

What I wonder is how long the production and installation cost--in terms of both energy output and material creation/pollution--will take to balance out compared to simply running it off of traditional power.

In terms of materials: most of the weight of solar panel is glass cover and Al frame - both can be recycled quite easily. Rest of the stuff (like Si cells, adhesives) can also be recycled or dissolved but not all companies do this:http://2011.solarteam.org/news/recyclin ... aic-panels

So as far as ecology is concerned - solar is pretty good

Thank you for responding to my question as opposed to simply downvoting me. I was genuinely curious

Headline seems a bit misleading as it implies all of the data centers are fully powered with renewable energy even though the article states that only 75% of the data centers' power usage is from renewables.

From what I understand, data centers run 100% on renewable energy, and Apple is globally running 75% on renewable energy.

From Apple's website: "And for all of Apple’s corporate facilities worldwide, we’re at 75 percent"

"Corporate facilities" most likely does not include manufacturing plants that Apple uses. Like most of Apple's claims, these numbers are misleading ("The iPhone is the only phone with Retina display"). The datacenters only account for 2% of their total carbon footprint. Let's see some real numbers such as their greenhouse gas emissions actually increased by 34% year over year. Not fooling anyone Apple

I think this is the first time EVER that I've liked, or even been proud of something that Apple's doing...

Now let's bear in mind however, that the amount of non-renewable resources being used to actually physically produce Apple's products ABSOLUTELY DWARFS the 20MW they're producing in the data center.

And the fact that everyone has to completely throw away the Apple products that they bought two years ago, and go buy an entirely new product- made from almost entirely virgin resources that are mined, refined, manufactured, packaged, and shipped to coal-powered smog factories who dump toxic waste into the water supplies of their sweat-shop's village, only to be packaged up in a nice little box that's covered in inks and coatings that are entirely derived from petroleum waste chemicals- which pump all sorts of toxic fumes into the air- Just before they're all loaded on a gigantic diesel powered cargo ship, which get's approximately 100 gallons to the mile (Yeah, gallons per mile- not miles per gallon) on it's almost 12,000 mile voyage to California. Seeing as the Earth is actually only 24,000 miles around- it's actually NOT POSSIBLE for anyone to EVER BE ANY FARTHER AWAY THAN 12,000 MILES! (If you were 12,001 miles away, you would actually be 11,999 miles away).

Yes, I'm afraid that after you add up all of the energy used to make an iMac, and iPhone, some ear-buds, and an Apple TV... 20MW 'might' actually cover it, and leave you with a month's power or two to actually run/charge each of them. And I mean JUST YOURS. Also bear in mind that for some reason, there will almost definitely be at least 1-2 million other people getting the same things as you...Every 2 years...Every damn year for some of you dweebs, BLAH!

Well, at least Apple is only one who operates like this. If the entire electronics industry worked like this, we would be doomed.

I think Greenpeace is right to be critical of Apple. Apple is the most powerful company in the world and yet hasn't done a thing to change Duke Energy's power mix. Apple's efforts to save endangered species in Burma have also been pretty lackluster, not to mention Apple's failure to address domestic violence and sexism in Eritrea.

Glass can most certainly be recycled- however bear in mind that the melting point of glass is ~4000°F. Also, glass is extremely abundant still- and old glass can instead be broken down and buried, or used as aggregate or insulation materials inside of concrete, asphalt, or other building materials.What's much more of a concern (at least for me), when recycling solar panels and other electronics in general- is being able to re-claim the copper, gold, germanium, lead, aluminum, etc. that they also contain.

Unfortunately, THE current trend in the electronics industry is to make products which are nearly impossible to ACTUALLY recycle. Instead, these "electronics recycling companies" ship the old circuit boards/etc. to some third world country, where they essentially just burn everything, and reclaim a few of the metals that are left over afterwords.

Oh, and by the way: For those of you who are STILL "waiting for the cost of solar to go down"...IT'S NOT GOING TO! Also: YOU'LL NEVER TURN A PROFIT BUYING ENERGY FROM SOMEONE ELSE. IF YOU HAD BOUGHT SOLAR PANELS 20 YEARS AGO, YOU'D BE GRINNING PRETTY WIDE RIGHT NOW

If Apple wasn't so wrapped up in their "image" and "lifestyle" focus- and if they *really* were a company founded by hippies- They would've dumped a shitload of money into solar manufacturing A LONG TIME AGO. Woops! (Personally, I would've spent every sent they got from when Microsoft bailed 'em out).

Now, I'm afraid it's a little late for that... While all of the Tech Giants were off buying grid power the last 10 years, and paying FedEx to ship their products everywhere- FedEx got their act together, and went and blanketed their main distribution center with solar panels, put in lots of battery storage, and hooked it up so they can supply the grid. Now, their operations are almost entirely running on free electricity- AND they are turning a profit 95% of the year off of the electricity that they generate and sell back to the grid. It's only during the xmas season that they actually wind up buying power from the utility. I forget what the exact figures were, but I believe they had estimated something like ~15 years for the system to 'pay for itself', and they actually wound up turning a profit off of it in only ~5 years!

Viking ZX wrote:

derpioderp wrote:

Viking ZX wrote:

What I wonder is how long the production and installation cost--in terms of both energy output and material creation/pollution--will take to balance out compared to simply running it off of traditional power.

In terms of materials: most of the weight of solar panel is glass cover and Al frame - both can be recycled quite easily. Rest of the stuff (like Si cells, adhesives) can also be recycled or dissolved but not all companies do this:http://2011.solarteam.org/news/recyclin ... aic-panels

So as far as ecology is concerned - solar is pretty good

Thank you for responding to my question as opposed to simply downvoting me. I was genuinely curious

I think this is the first time EVER that I've liked, or even been proud of something that Apple's doing...

Now let's bear in mind however, that the amount of non-renewable resources being used to actually physically produce Apple's products ABSOLUTELY DWARFS the 20MW they're producing in the data center.

And the fact that everyone has to completely throw away the Apple products that they bought two years ago, and go buy an entirely new product- made from almost entirely virgin resources that are mined, refined, manufactured, packaged, and shipped to coal-powered smog factories who dump toxic waste into the water supplies of their sweat-shop's village, only to be packaged up in a nice little box that's covered in inks and coatings that are entirely derived from petroleum waste chemicals- which pump all sorts of toxic fumes into the air- Just before they're all loaded on a gigantic diesel powered cargo ship, which get's approximately 100 gallons to the mile (Yeah, gallons per mile- not miles per gallon) on it's almost 12,000 mile voyage to California. Seeing as the Earth is actually only 24,000 miles around- it's actually NOT POSSIBLE for anyone to EVER BE ANY FARTHER AWAY THAN 12,000 MILES! (If you were 12,001 miles away, you would actually be 11,999 miles away).

Yes, I'm afraid that after you add up all of the energy used to make an iMac, and iPhone, some ear-buds, and an Apple TV... 20MW 'might' actually cover it, and leave you with a month's power or two to actually run/charge each of them. And I mean JUST YOURS. Also bear in mind that for some reason, there will almost definitely be at least 1-2 million other people getting the same things as you...Every 2 years...Every damn year for some of you dweebs, BLAH!

Anyways, I guess it's still a step in the right direction or something.

Is this different than the way it works for your Android phone, LCD TV, Sony stereo components, Dell Computer, or any of a plethora of consumer products? In fact, if you go based on resale value on eBay, Apple products tend to have pretty good longevity compared to commodity goods like Dell computers or non-Samsung Android phones.

Glass can most certainly be recycled- however bear in mind that the melting point of glass is ~4000°F.

Wow... 4,000°F. That's amazing... but isn't it a little overkill to use high-silica glass for solar panel protection. I would think they would generally use regular soda lime glass, with a melting point more like 2,700°F. Plus, utilizing recycled glass in the furnace actually reduces the required furnace temperature, so recycling glass can really be cost effective.

But you keep throwing around that BS, now. You clearly know exactly what you're talking about.

I think Greenpeace is right to be critical of Apple. Apple is the most powerful company in the world and yet hasn't done a thing to change Duke Energy's power mix. Apple's efforts to save endangered species in Burma have also been pretty lackluster, not to mention Apple's failure to address domestic violence and sexism in Eritrea.

Shame on you Apple.

Most powerful company in the world is more than a little bit of hyperbole. Most energy companies routinely demonstrate more power than Apple has. Within their own industry, they are second to Microsoft and Google in worldwide sales of computers and smartphones.